Order Refusing To Appoint Local Commissioner Does Not Adjudicate Rights Of Parties, No Revision Lies Against It: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin thus dismissed the revision petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.
The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin thus dismissed the revision petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), whereby it dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for appointment of a Local Commissioner.
The case came up as a result of a civil suit filed by the petitioner for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from constructing a bus stop in front of the Government Primary School which was also opposite to the house of the petitioner. During the pendency of this suit, the petitioner filed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Hence, he filed this petition.
The court after hearing rival submissions by the parties considered that in the present case the challenge is regarding the order dismissing the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner.
The court relied on the cases of Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal [1990(2) PLR 191] and held that appointing a commission is totally discretionary on the court.
Apart from that, placing the onus on an issue has something to do with the rights of the parties whereas refusing to appoint a Commission under Order 26, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties as such. It is the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commission thereunder and if the Court refuses to appoint a Commission, then no right of any party can be said to be prejudiced as such.
The court further relied on the case of Smt. Raksha Devi v. Madan Lal & Ors. [2017(3) PLR 249] wherein a similar view was taken, and it has been held that no revision would be maintainable against an order of dismissal of an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner.
Court further concluded that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below.
For the reasons provided above, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title : Deva Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Other
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 62